Radheshyam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C.(A) No. 741 /2016 Radheshyam, S/o. Manharan Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Village : Rajpur, Tahsil & Police Station Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police StationDhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr. Vivek Singhal, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 26/08/2016 1.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.198/2016 registered at Police Station- Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 34 of Indian Penal Code, the applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. 2.

As per the prosecution case, a report was made by Anita Sahu, the complainant, on 22.06.2016 that the applicant and the family members are treated her with cruelty for demand of dowry as also a dispute arose over a photograph of the lady with the other boy, therefore, the offence has been committed.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant married to the complainant 8 years back and out of the wedlock, children were also born and according to the document which has been placed, the applicant and the complainant have entered into a compromise as there was some dispute existing on 26.05.2016, therefore, no case is made out and, as such, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

Perused the statement and the report of the complainant. Considering the nature of allegation leveled wherein general allegations have been attributed and it is stated that because of some photograph the primary dispute arose and further taking into the totality of the case, I find it to be a fit case where the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be extended to the applicant. 6.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released on bail by the officer arresting him on furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the following conditions :

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok